annually, failed to satisfy their commercial ambition. The inhabitants of this and other isolated provinces recognized that the commercial regulations violated their interests, and they were driven to decide between upholding a law which sacrificed their well-being and giving countenance to a violation of this law through which would come prosperity and progress. The result here was what might have been expected. The vast extent of the border of Spain's possessions made it impossible for her to guard it efficiently. Smuggling could, therefore, be carried on with impunity, and the high prices which had been given to European wares in America by the system of restriction constituted a sufficient inducement to lead the merchants of other nations to engage in contraband trade.

The discovery of the passage around Cape Horn opened new currents for the trade with Spanish America. With this, the Pacific ceased to be an inland sea of the Spanish dominions, reached only by crossing Spanish territory. It was entered by all nations, and the doctrine of the freedom of the sea, which was later formulated by Hugo Grotius, was introduced in practice. Here was the beginning of the end of Spanish monopoly. Both the eastern and western coasts of South America were infested with English, French, Portuguese, and Dutch traders, who carried their contraband wares to nearly every Spanish-American port; but nowhere were the effects of this smuggling more marked than in the development of Buenos Ayres. Here the commercial nations, by trading either directly or through the Portuguese settlements in the neighboring territory of Brazil, particularly through Colonia, gathered, as General Mitre has said, "the best fruits, which Spain in her blindness denied to herself." "The contraband trade constituted the true commerce, and its operations were carried on with the regularity of a lawful act for the protection of the common interest. The merchants of the port had agents for this purpose in Rio Janeiro and Lisbon, and even in Seville;" and the traffic was conducted in complete security, undisturbed by the authorities, who were unable to suppress it, and "had to tolerate it or consent to it, as a fact or as a necessity." (Mitre, Historia de Belgrano, I, p. 42.) Nowhere else in the history of the world has contraband trade been so

regularly and thoroughly organized as here. Under it, to use the words of Merivale

Buenos Ayres rose from an insignificant station to a considerable city, merely from being the center of the contraband traffic between Europe and Pern. The Spaniards guarded their coasts with an expensive maritime force, while they resorted in the interior to the strange measure of making smuggling an offense cognizable by the Inquisition. But all such efforts were fruitless to check the force and violence of the ordinary trade. The flotas and galleons sank to insignificance; and their owners were glad to make these licensed squadrons serve for introducing the contraband commodities of other nations. (Colonization and Colonies, pp. 15, 16.)

X.-SOME EUROPEAN MODIFICATIONS OF THE JURY SYSTEM.

By Dr. WALTER B. SCAIFE.

The French Revolution introduced the modern jury system upon the continent of Europe; Napoleon made it a part of his code; it entered into the creed of the political agitators of 1848, and has since been adopted by almost every country of the Continent. Be it understood, however, that it is employed only in criminal matters, for the great majority of continental jurists are practically a unit in considering this institution ill adapted to the settlement of civil disputes growing out of the complicated relations of modern life.

One of the French jurists has well said: "Of all the positions of trust which the law can confer on a citizen, there is not one which requires more of discernment, of independence, and of morality" than that of juryman, and a study of the political movements and reforms on the continent of Europe for the past century will show the profound interest which the jury has excited there, while the number of laws that have been enacted with a view to bringing good men into the jury box and regulating their action according to the best principles testifies to the fact that the author above quoted but voices a general conviction. If we only pause to consider that to the judgment of the twelve men in the jury are intrusted fortune, reputation, liberty, nay, even life itself, can the dignity of their office be too strongly emphasized? Can too much stress be laid upon the necessity of providing legal methods which will prevent men unworthy of such dignity from being chosen to that high office? Can we, as members of a self-ruling people, regard it as a burden to be called upon to fulfill our part in the execution of such laws?

In contrast with the old idea that it is the monarch who judges an offender against the laws, the jury is the embodiment of the theory that any person charged with a crime against society

shall be judged by his equals, chosen with his consent from the community where the crime has been committed. The conception of trial by jury includes not only the actual hearing in the court room and the making of the verdict in the jury room, but also the preliminary stages of the investigation before the matter is brought to the notice of the jury whose voice is to decide the fate of the accused. The method of conducting these preliminaries, the manner of selecting the jurymen, the form of examining the witnesses, and the part played by the accused; the duties of the presiding judge, the kind of questions submitted to the jury, and the way of answering them; finally, the latitude of the jury's powers, all have been subjected on the continent of Europe to numerous modifications of theory and fact, a study of which not only offers interesting historical material, but may also be of use in seeking to improve our own methods of administering justice.

On the 29th of March, 1790, Duport introduced into the National Assembly of France a project for the reorganization of the judiciary, in which it was proposed to elect the judges by the people and to employ juries as judges of fact in both civil and criminal matters. He made a long speech, largely devoted to the praise of the jury system, which was received by the Assembly with hearty applause. Toward the close of it he said:

I have thought that everyone, seeing in the judicial organization his life, his happiness, and his liberty, would desire to have that organization as perfect as possible. You will have a justice prompt, ready, and, above all, impartial. Your judges will be honored, because they will be useful; because they will be few; because they will no longer be debased by an absurd hierarchy. You will have justice and laws explicit and within the understanding of everyone. Finally, the organization of the judicial power will be such that you will have nothing to fear from it for the public liberty, and such as will restore to France honesty, freedom, and good morals.

Other projects were offered, and the discussion was continued at intervals for a month, when the Assembly decreed that the jury should be established, but for criminal matters only. The decree was carried by a large majority, while the spectators loudly demonstrated their approval. However, it was not until September of the following year that the law as a whole was passed, and the new organization did not go into effect until the 1st of January, 1792.